Patient One et al v. UnitedHealth Group Inc et al

Filing 25

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Order to Show Cause re: Joinder of Parties. Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice to allow each PlaintiffPatient One in one case, and Pat ient Two in anotherto bring her own lawsuit against Defendants. A memorandum explaining why joinder is permissible in this suit shall be deemed an adequate response to this order. Plaintiffs shall file their response, not to exceed four pages, on or before Friday, November 8, 2013. Failure to respond to this Order will be deemed consent to dismissal without prejudice. See document for details. (smo)

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-7369 GAF (PJWx)

Title

Patient One, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 24, 2013

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Stephen Montes Kerr
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: JOINDER OF PARTIES

Plaintiffs Patient One and Patient Two bring this suit against various Defendants asserting
causes of action under ERISA for failure to process medical expenses in accordance with the
terms of their health insurance plans. (Docket No. 1, [Compl.].) Both Plaintiffs bring their
claim following successful surgeries, which they allege ought to have been covered by their
health insurance plan. (Id. ¶¶ 25–54, 55–80.) Both Patient One and Patient Two had lap-band
surgeries, which aid in weight loss, and both Patient One and Patient Two were informed that
such a surgery would be covered by their health plans. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 63.) In both instances,
Defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc., United Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare
Insurance Company, Inc., and Ingenix, Inc., were the parties allegedly responsible for approval
and payment of Plaintiffs’ medical costs. (Id. ¶¶ 18, 31, 63.)
But although Plaintiffs’ experiences at this level of abstraction are similar, their claims
arise out of different events and different individual health plans. Each of them underwent her
own, separate surgery and claims filing process. (Id. ¶¶ 39–40, 64, 67–69.) Patient One has
health insurance through a “plan provided by her husband’s employer,” Defendant BNSF
Railway Company, (id. ¶ 25), while Patient Two has health insurance through a different “plan
provided by her former employer,” Pacific Bell Telephone Company, (id. ¶ 55).
The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs may be improperly joined in a single
complaint. Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[p]ersons may join in
one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative
with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the
action.” Fed R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1) (emphasis added).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-7369 GAF (PJWx)

Title

Date

October 24, 2013

Patient One, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al.

Here, while the allegations indicate that each Plaintiff may have been damaged through
similar alleged conduct, the Complaint does not indicate that the right to relief “aris[es] out of
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Rather, it appears
that the Court will be required, under a single caption, to adjudicate multiple individual lawsuits
and that no judicial economy will be achieved.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should
not be dismissed without prejudice to allow each Plaintiff—Patient One in one case, and Patient
Two in another—to bring her own lawsuit against Defendants. A memorandum explaining why
joinder is permissible in this suit shall be deemed an adequate response to this order. Plaintiffs
shall file their response, not to exceed four pages, on or before Friday, November 8, 2013.
Failure to respond to this Order will be deemed consent to dismissal without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2